TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se appeals being same, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. The parties are here after referred to as assessee and department for the sake of convenience. 2. The period involved in appeal No.ST/41743 of 2019 is April 2005 to March 2010. The assessee was issued show cause notice alleging short payment of service tax in respect of constructions provided to Educational institutions as well as construction of commercial and industrial complexes. The demand on both these types of constructions was raised under the category of 'Commercial and Industrial Construction Services' (hereinafter referred to as CICS). The department was of the view that the assessee has short paid service tax under CICS for the reason that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the confirmation of demand the assessee is now before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel Shri S. Durairaj appeared and argued for the assessee. The Ld. Counsel submitted that for the period prior to 01.06.2007 the decision in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd., would be applicable as the demand raised under CICS cannot sustain. The department has raised the demand in respect of construction services rendered for spinning mills (construction of Commercial/Industrial Complexes) for the reason that the assessee has availed the abatement under Notification 01/2006. The fact that assessee has used free supplied materials itself would establish that the entire constructions are in the nature of composite contract and not services simpliciter. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2015 (39) STR 390 (S.C) would be applicable only for the period prior to 1.6.2007. The Commissioner has erroneously dropped the demand for the period from 1.6.2007 to March 2010. The decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters is not applicable as the department has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. With regard to the demand raised on services rendered for construction of spinning mills, the Ld. AR submitted that since the assessee has received free supplies, the assessee is not eligible for abatement as per the Notification No.1/2006. The appeal filed by the department may be allowed. 9. Heard both sides. 10. The issues that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the demand of service t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods and rendering of services. Therefore, the demand has to be under WCS only. 12. In the case of Real Value Promoters, the Tribunal held that the demand for the period prior to 01.07.2012 can be made only under WCS and the demand made under CICS (RCS) etc., cannot be sustained. The relevant paragraph reads as under: 7.8 On the contrary, being composite works contracts, they will necessarily fall within the ambit of works contract service as defined under section 65(105)(zzzza) ibid. it is possibly with this intent in mind that the lawmakers have included in the definition of works contract, erection and commissioning service, commercial or industrial construction service, construction of complex service and in addition turnkey....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment was dismissed on merits, thereby affirming the decision passed by the Tribunal. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the demand raised by the department on construction services executed for educational institution under CICS for the period from April 2005 to March 2012 cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. 14. In addition, another issue is that for the period from 2005 to March 2010, demand has been raised on the construction services provided to Spinning Mills denying the benefit under Notification No. 1/2006 alleging that the assessee has received free supplies of materials. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CST Vs. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd., - 2018 10 GSTL 118 (SC) has held that even if the assessee r....